The previous article sets up the understanding that spirits are conscious intangible beings. We have seen what the people alive at the time of Jesus understood spirits or ghosts to be. We didn’t give what we believed the word spirit/ghost means from the lexicon on some random verse. We let the text finger the nature of a spirit or ghost. We threw the gauntlet at your feet, asking the question, if the thesis about spirits in the previous article is true, why must the Holy Spirit be understood any differently? Why are other spirits considered animate beings given force-like qualities, and only the Holy Spirit is an inanimate being given the qualities of a being? It breaks the tenor of the scriptures portrayal of what a spirit is.
To close off the essence of our argumentation on spirits, it would be incomplete, to not consider some of the words, Christ described the Father with. He said of the Father, that God is Spirit. Yes, God is Spirit (Joh 4). The same word pneuma is used. Like every other spirit (excluding the Holy Spirit), no one ever argues that the Father isn’t an animate being. Why is the Holy Spirit the only spirit being questioned? Ontological issues.
When we use the word “being”, subconsciously, since we only experientially know of human beings, we unconsciously ascribed human being qualities and limitations to other classes of beings. Remember the first article. Human beings are not “spirits” (pneuma). Therefore when you’re thinking about beings in a nonhuman sense, you must also relinquish human qualities in your reasoning (unless they are shared qualities). So that whenever you approach seemingly contradictory verses, your reasoning will follow a trail of thought that will not confer our limitations as humans to other intelligent classes of being. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. He must be treated as such. Therefore whenever we consider his person-hood, in our conceptions He must not have the same limitations that humans have. If that is the case, it could be conceivable that it can act as force, and retain its individual existence and personality. Just like other spirits. Such reasoning would be progress in dealing with this topic thoroughly.
Now that we have exposed the biases on both sides, come back to the traditional ‘pro-divinity of the Holy Spirit’ verses. The name of the three entities to be baptized with (Matt 28). The Holy Spirit is there, separate from the Father. How can the Spirit be mentioned separate from the Father and yet still be The Father? How can He have His own name and yet be an extension of The Father’s self? Only animate spirits have names. Only animate pneumas have names in Scripture, no other pneumas have such.
“Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas”. The Holy Spirit uses personal pronouns to refer to Himself (Acts 13:). Within the pages of scripture, which wind, fire or force, has ever spoken let alone referred to itself? The verse suggests to us that the same Spirit even has a will. An inanimate thing that speaks, and has a will? This inconceivable within the pages of our bibles. Animate or Inanimate? You decide.
How about an anti-deity of the Spirit of God verses? Someone once presented that Christ breathing out the Holy Spirit (Joh 20) is surely a refutation of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Along with all the other verses (Gen 1:2, Acts 11:15, Rev 4:5, etc.) that don’t seem to give the Spirit clear animate qualities throughout scripture. Our response is captured in the previous article. A spirit is a being that can have force-like qualities, because according to the nature of spirits, a being can have force-like qualities and yet be fully a being. In other words, we at Fuller’s Soap, accept all the verses that seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a force, because it fits the ontology of spirit beings that we have established in previous articles. Force-like qualities does NOT mean that the Spirit is not being, but rather strengthens the claims of the Spirit because all other spirit beings have force-like qualities.This is a consolidation of our views of the Holy Spirit doctrine. Keep your eyes open for future articles, you will note that Fuller’s Soap, will consistently use the same exegetical principles for future Godhead articles, and will maintain harmony within the articles. That is consistency. If you disagree with the thesis, supply an antithesis that is consistent.
Fullers' Soap 